Ryan Is Obviously Not a Dove

Paul Ryan gave a speech today at the Center for a New American Security, in which he misrepresented his foreign policy views:

Ryan, a skilled politician, is clearly trying to maintain his standing with both sides of the party. In the CNAS speech, he described himself as a “heavily-armed dove” [bold mine-DL] — a name that both interventionists and isolationists could theoretically adopt.

It’s mildly interesting that some hawkish Republicans seem to be embarrassed to admit what they are, but it’s still absurd to think that Ryan could qualify as a dove in any sense. There is almost no military action that the U.S. has taken overseas that Ryan hasn’t supported. The only time that Ryan has come out against a proposed intervention was last year during the Syria debate, and opposing the “limited” strikes on Syria doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Indeed, Ryan objected to the proposed strikes because he believed them to be too limited:

The president says a show of force will preserve our credibility. But a feckless show of force will only damage our credibility.

That is consistent with Ryan’s well-established record as a foreign policy hawk. Like almost all Republicans in Congress at the time, Ryan voted for the Iraq war authorization, but he has also become a predictable supporter of more aggressive policies across the board. He may say that he doesn’t think the U.S. needs a “more militarized foreign policy,” but in practice he has opposed every effort to have a less militarized one. He has resisted reducing military spending, indulged in fear-mongering about Russian or Chinese hegemony replacing ours, and has opposed withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In this latest speech, he specifically called for spending more on the military. When he faults the administration on foreign policy, he usually objects to Obama’s unwillingness to use force or his supposed lack of credibility in threatening force. This was true before he was Romney’s running mate in 2012, it was true during the campaign, and it still true now.

Ryan’s claim to be a dove is obviously false, and it is intended to distract us from his real record.

Laughing – funny video. I do not agree that Se, Ryan is anything other than he sys he is. I don’t think his attitude about the poor is anything other than genuine. Now certainly there is some manner of political posturing after all the gentleman is running for office. But that does not preclude a genuine desire to solve issues, such as poverty, criminal justice, tax reform or any number of issues he may attend.

As for ‘hawk or dove’ I would think that people on the inside with some manner of education would by now know that political expediency is not the same as political reality. And that political realities as to the use of the military in the country’s interest was completely unwarranted in Iraq and politically speaking unwise, even in the light of 9/11.

However, I would agree him that if one must go to war, one had better do so completely. Minus the will to engage fully destroying the nation of Iraq and Afghanistan it was unwise to go. Afghanistan should have been a covert op (if necessary) in conjuction with efforts by the CIA and the FBI to capture Osama Bin Laden. And unwillingness and or inability to know who all the players are in regions such as Syria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, etc. would demand a full scale endeavour to clean house, which would also be messy. And knowing that should be cause not to so engage.

His failure to comprehend or communicate that he comprehends that is troubling.

Ryan is certainly no dove and that’s why no one takes his budgets seriously. You cannot either balance the budget or reduce the size of government without reducing the size of the national secruity state. It is not a circle that can be squared. Its only for the sake of politics and contributions the party receives from the defense and security industries that every Republican budget that you can increase spending on defense and wind up with the government you had pre-New Deal.

“Republican budget that you can increase spending on defense and wind up with the government you had pre-New Deal.”

I am not sure that it is a given that conflicts involving the US require larger budgets. But it is the practice. Given that attempting to pin military budget increases on Republicans based on the last eight years doesn’ square well with history. Generally military spending has increased because of conflict, weapons upgrades and the fact that inflation does not ignore defense requirements as well as colas

Sen Ryan just has to demonstrate clear and present (perhaps these days – prescient should be the standard), treaty obligation and or immediate genocide on matters of US intervention.

That’s my take.

But no one can escape the predictable scenario now engulfing Iraq – not Sec CLinton nor Sen Ryan. I lean heavily against going back in — but how do walk away from something for which you are responsible.

And regardless, of the tenure, that the heaviest axe will again fall on those who advocated the measure in the first place.

Detroit, Appalachia, ghettos of Chicago, Killeen and other domestic dumps probably could probably use this US military socialism abroad more so, but oh well…

There is no “pure” libertarian or non-interventionist candidate – and there may never be. Look at Rand Paul write a sensible article in NRO on stopping aid to Syrian “rebels” but had to kowtow for the N-con block check of advertising his support of “Stand with Israel Act of 2014.” But then again, that was NRO, you have to bend somewhat to your readership.